SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN vs STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
On 21 March 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 159-160 of 2013
IN
Criminal Appeal Nos. 300-301 of 2011

Sundar @ Sundarrajan … Petitioner

versus
State (India) by Inspector of Police … Respondent

Date Of Judgment:- March 21, 2023
Case citation:- 2023 INSC 324
Presiding judges:-
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (Chief Justice)
Hima Kohli

Factual Background

On 27 July 2009, the Petitioner kidnapped a seven-year-old child in Kammapuram, Tamil Nadu. He made two calls to the victim’s mother, demanding a ransom of Rs 5 lakhs. On 30 July 2009, the police raided the house of the Petitioner and arrested him and a co-accused. The Petitioner confessed to strangling the child and disposing of his body in a tank. On the basis of the Petitioner’s confession, the police recovered the victim’s body from the tank.

The petitioner was convicted by the Cuddalore Trial Court of kidnapping and killing the child. In accordance with Sections 364A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, he was found guilty of kidnapping and murder and given the death penalty. The co-accused was found not guilty of any charges.

The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged his conviction before the Madras High Court. Additionally, a Supreme Court of India appeal heard by a Division Bench consisting of two judges was denied. The conviction and the death sentence imposed by the Trial Court were maintained by both appellate courts.

In Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 2014 INSC 590, the Supreme Court ruled that applications seeking a review of death penalty sentences have to be heard in public. The petitioner contended that because his conviction contained judicial mistakes, it should be reviewed. He maintained that even if his guilt were proven, his sentence should be mitigated because the courts had not taken into account mitigating circumstances when they sentenced him to death. The State of Tamil Nadu argued that the claimed mistakes did not justify the Supreme Court’s limited review authority.

Issue Of the Case

(i) Should the conviction of the petitioner for kidnapping and murder (under Sections 364A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) be reviewed by the Supreme Court?
(ii) Was it appropriate to give the petitioner the death penalty?

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the petitioner’s conviction for kidnapping and murder. However, it came to the conclusion that neither the Trial Court nor the appellate courts had considered mitigating circumstances while determining whether to execute the Petitioner, which was only appropriate in very rare situations. The Supreme Court changed the petitioner’s sentence to life imprisonment for at least 20 years with no chance of parole. The court’s decision was written by Chief Justice Chandrachud.

a. Ratio Decidendi

No errors apparent on the face of the record

The prosecution‘s case was supported by compelling witness testimony and documentary evidence, and the court determined that the petitioner had failed to cast a reasonable doubt on it. The conviction of the petitioner for kidnapping and murder was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which was satisfied with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, the High Court, and its Division Bench.

Examining both aggravating and mitigating conditions

The Supreme Court determined that before imposing the death penalty, the Trial Court had not given the Petitioner a proper hearing on sentencing. Neither the Trial Court nor the appellate courts had sincerely attempted to take into account mitigating factors that would indicate the Petitioner’s potential for reform or rehabilitation. Rather, the punishment was enforced and validated based only on the heinousness of the offense. The Supreme Court’s Division Bench concluded that the Petitioner’s choice to kill a family’s sole son, who would have continued the family line, constituted an aggravating circumstance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India modified the petitioner’s death sentence to life imprisonment for a minimum of twenty years without mercy or remission in the case of Sundar @ Sundarrajan vs. State by Inspector of Police.

Although the court took into account the mitigating circumstances and determined that the death penalty was not justified, it affirmed the petitioner’s conviction for the kidnapping and murder of a 7-year-old boy.

Additionally, the court directed the Registry to register a suo motu contempt proceeding against the Inspector of Police for concealing material information regarding the petitioner’s conduct in prison.